Siyaram Singh v. The Managing Director Bihar State Food And Civil Supply Cor. Ltd. And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Request Case No.7 of 2015 =========================================================== Siyaram Singh Son of Sri Saryu Prasad Singh, resident of Village Hathiyawan, Police Station and Block Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, Proprietor of M/s Jai Shree Krishan Rice Mill Hathiyawan .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd Soan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna
2. The Deputy Chief Claim, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Soan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna
3. The District Manager, the State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Lakhisarai/Sheikhpura
4. The Certificate Officer, Sheikhpura .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-07-2015 The petitioner is a Rice Miller. In the year 2013, the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has, for and on behalf of the Food Corporation of India, supplied 9672 quintals of paddy for custom milling to the petitioner. As per the agreement between the parties, the petitioner was supposed to deposit 6480.20 quintals of resultant rice worked out @ 67% of the paddy. As against that, the petitioner supplied 5400 quintals of rice and there was balance of 1080.20 quintals. The respondents issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the cost of the balance quantity of rice worked out at Rs. 23,39,237.91. Thereafter steps were initiated under
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.7 of 2015 dt.23-07-2015 2/3 the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. This application is filed with a prayer to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 16 of the Agreement. The respondents filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner had admitted their liability to pay the cost of the balance of rice and in fact tendered the amount of Rs.5 lacs. According to the respondents, th ere is no dispute worth being referred to the Arbitrator.
Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent-Corporation.
It is a matter of record that the petitioner received paddy for custom milling and was under obligation to tender the rice to the extent of 9672 quintals. However, there was a short delivery of 1080.20 quintals of rice. After the due date, when the respondents demanded the cost of undelivered rice being Rs.23,39,237.91p. the petitioner came forward to pay the amount in instalments. They issued a demand draft for Rs.5 lacs. The petitioner, however, stated that the cost of undelivered rice is Rs.20,15,298.50p. While the respondents calculated the amount on the basis of cost of the rice, the petitioner wants to reckon the amount as per the cost of the paddy. That, in fact, can be the area of dispute. However, in terms of money, the dispute is only in relation to the amount of Rs.3,23,939.41p. (Rs.23,39,237.91 - Rs.20,15,298.50p.).
It is not in dispute that Clause 16 of the Agreement provides for resolution of dispute between the parties through arbitration in accordance with the procedures stipulated therein. As condition precedent for that, the petitioner has to pay the remaining amount. A sum of Rs.5 lacs has since been paid.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.7 of 2015 dt.23-07-2015 3/3 This application is, therefore, disposed of directing that the dispute between the parties is restricted to Rs.3,23,939.41p. and is referred to arbitration under Clause 16 of the Agreement dated 30.3.2013 provided that the petitioner clears the balance of Rs.15,15,298.50p. before presenting the claim with the Arbitrator. If any amount towards the balance has been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be taken into account. (L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) mrl U